MANUNITED23 wrote:Liverpool is better off selling him, too big of a headache.

INCORRECT. They have a lot invested in him and he's a wonderful footballer. His value would be very low right now anyway. Better to try to correct his issues and help him work out his problems so that he can focus on the football. Would you have wanted Ushited to sell Cantona after the dragon kick? Or Rooney after any of his incidents? Everything is relative. 10 matches for this is silly. They (the FA) are basically saying that biting is worse than racism. 5 matches would have been enough.

Perhaps but does he want to stay, really? I'm not really sure about that. Of course if he gets his head straight then there is no reason to sell him. He is a great player but no player is bigger than a team.

MANUNITED23 wrote:Perhaps but does he want to stay, really? I'm not really sure about that. Of course if he gets his head straight then there is no reason to sell him. He is a great player but no player is bigger than a team.

You're right, no player is bigger than the team, but Suarez has owned this and is obviously ashamed of himself. Liverpool have more to gain by trying to help him with his issues than they do by selling him at this point. He's absolutely a one-of-a-kind player, and you don't cash in your chips on someone like that because of a few incidents.

He got 8 games for the first time he bit someone (a sentence I never thought i'd type) so the FA had their hands tied a bit, it had to go up from there for a second offence surely? I agree with your annoyance that racism bans were less than this, but the fact that he's had both says to me he deserves whatevers coming to him.

Storts wrote:Hahaha, can any of you be complaining about the ten game ban, it's perfectly justified.

Defoe was booked, anyone that knows FA policy realises they cannot retrospectively take action if the referee has already dealt with it

Stop talking shit. The FA was within their power to do something about the Defoe incident and didn't. It's a blatant witch hunt, and the punishment is being dealt to the man and not the crime here.

You're the one 'talking shit' as usual when it comes to issues on Suarez. Show me the precedent for the FA charging people if already dealt with by the referee.

You're not even a scouser and you've bought into their everyone's against us mindset. Ten games is perfectly reasonable for someone that has biting previous at their former club plus a serious misdemeanour already whilst in the country. There is no 'witch-hunt' simply one player that has a lot of issues. You telling me what the english Joey Barton did to get a 12 game ban was worse than Suarez?

Storts wrote:Hahaha, can any of you be complaining about the ten game ban, it's perfectly justified.

Defoe was booked, anyone that knows FA policy realises they cannot retrospectively take action if the referee has already dealt with it

Stop talking shit. The FA was within their power to do something about the Defoe incident and didn't. It's a blatant witch hunt, and the punishment is being dealt to the man and not the crime here.

You're the one 'talking shit' as usual when it comes to issues on Suarez. Show me the precedent for the FA charging people if already dealt with by the referee.

You're not even a scouser and you've bought into their everyone's against us mindset. Ten games is perfectly reasonable for someone that has biting previous at their former club plus a serious misdemeanour already whilst in the country. There is no 'witch-hunt' simply one player that has a lot of issues. You telling me what the english Joey Barton did to get a 12 game ban was worse than Suarez?

the 12 game ban was for multiple incidents in the same match. The ref didn't see Defoe's bite, otherwise he'd have caught a red card for it. Instead, he was booked for the challenge. the FA could have instituted an additional ban, but didn't. Suarez is ACCUSED of racist remarks, and confesses to using the word 'negrito', which is a common slang in South America, but the literal translation has racist connotations in English-speaking countries. he was given an 8-match ban for owning up to it. Terry is clearly seen on camera calling Anton Ferdinand a "Black c**t", and is given a 3 match ban. Open your eyes.

That's complete and utter rubbish. Defoe was fouled by Mascherano, and was booked for the aftermath with the ref standing right over the incident. As seen in the video below. Again show me the precedence for the FA undermining our referee's authority.

Storts wrote:That's complete and utter rubbish. Defoe was fouled by Mascherano, and was booked for the aftermath with the ref standing right over the incident. As seen in the video below. Again show me the precedence for the FA undermining our referee's authority.

Suarez WAS racist. There isn't an accused about it, he was punished accordingly. I agree the Terry decision was a disgrace, think it was a 4 game ban but either way that wasn't enough.

Interesting that both Evra and the review board stated that they did not feel that Suarez was a racist.

And back to defoe, if the ref is a representative of the FA, and he flet that a blatant bite on Mascherano was only worth a booking, then why is the same thing from Suarez worth a 10 match ban? Sort yourself out. It's excessive. 5 games would have been more than enough. a 10 game ban is inconsistent and basically says that a bite is worse than calling someone a "black c**t" on live TV.

Storts wrote:That's complete and utter rubbish. Defoe was fouled by Mascherano, and was booked for the aftermath with the ref standing right over the incident. As seen in the video below. Again show me the precedence for the FA undermining our referee's authority.

Suarez WAS racist. There isn't an accused about it, he was punished accordingly. I agree the Terry decision was a disgrace, think it was a 4 game ban but either way that wasn't enough.

Interesting that both Evra and the review board stated that they did not feel that Suarez was a racist.

And back to defoe, if the ref is a representative of the FA, and he flet that a blatant bite on Mascherano was only worth a booking, then why is the same thing from Suarez worth a 10 match ban? Sort yourself out. It's excessive. 5 games would have been more than enough. a 10 game ban is inconsistent and basically says that a bite is worse than calling someone a "black c**t" on live TV.

But they both believed he used racist language in the heat of the moment as he has a problem controlling his actions.

You can't keep changing your argument, it's hard to take you seriously when you just seem to be making up facts to help your arguments. As I said, he had previous where he got a 7 game ban, if he hasn't learnt from that, alongside the ban for racism, there is absolutely no doubt that 10 games is fair.

Storts wrote:Hahaha, can any of you be complaining about the ten game ban, it's perfectly justified.

Defoe was booked, anyone that knows FA policy realises they cannot retrospectively take action if the referee has already dealt with it

This is a ridiculous argument from the FA and anyone that falls on it to wind up Liverpool fans shares in their ignorance.

Storts its fair you didn't have time to read either of the FAs reports on Suarez. But don't perpetuate your ignorance on theirs.

The second, and more ridiculous, is the premise that had Suarez simply been given a card at the time he would not have received any more than his red card punishment (second yellow)

Do you really believe the FA would not have acted? I dont. Liverpool fans dont.

Suarez deserved a ban, and a strong one. 10 games is excessive, hypocritical and inconsistent with the FAs actions, ideology rhetoric. To argue that its fair is fine, to back it with the FAs rules shares in their ignorance.

the suspension is given. Liverpool have accepted (which they should have done). time to move on.